Trump Bans Media from White House, Europe on High Alert, College Sports Bill

President Trump says he's banning three news organizations from the White House. It's being seen as an attack on free speech. But it's not clear how the ban will actually be enforced. I'm Debbie Elliott. And I'm Scott Simon, and this is Up First from NPR News. Europe is on high alert. Leaders say that threats from Russia are intensifying. And that European nations need to prepare for possible drone and even missile attacks. We'll have the view from Moscow. And Congress is pitching in for college sports. A new bill aims to overhaul the rules and financing around what's become a multi-billion dollar industry. So please stay with us. We've got the news you need to start your weekend. President Trump has banned three news organizations from the White House. CNN, MSNOW, and Politico. In a post online, he promised, quote, other fake news media outlets to follow. We're joined now by NPR's Ron Elving. Ron, thanks so much for being with us. Good to be with you, Scott. And Ron, this summary ban, this is America. Couldn't the president do that? We find ourselves asking that question a lot these days. I'm not a constitutional law scholar. But I. I know how to consult people who are. And there's broad agreement that the president cannot do this in the manner he wishes. Once he opens the door to the media, he cannot close it partially to exclude those whose reporting may displease him. It's been to court, been ruled a violation of the First Amendment guarantee. And the president of the White House Correspondents Association, Jackie Heinrich, noted yesterday that the constitutional protection does not depend, quote, on whether the president likes a news organization's coverage, agrees with its reporting, or approves the questions its journalists ask. Now, Heinrich is herself a senior White House correspondent for Fox News. And she also said, quote, This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies, and decisions of whoever occupies the nation's highest office. Now, President Trump tried to ban one CNN reporter years ago. He tried to ban the Associated Press early in his second term. The courts backed the media both times. Although the AP ruling is still being appealed, but Trump may have his reasons to blow off steam this way, perhaps thinking it will distract from news that's been making him unhappy this week. Including perhaps no agreement with Iran that would end the war, the U.S. Congress, including seven Republicans, voted to end President Trump's powers to prosecute it. What do you see developing here? Congress is in a struggle toward fulfilling its constitutional duties, regarding war-making. We are right up against the basic constitution here again. In this case, the power to declare war belongs exclusively to Congress, which has, of course, devised its own ways to use the military without such a declaration. One is a formal AUMF. That's an authorization for use of military force. We all learned that acronym after 9-11, when U.S. forces went into Afghanistan and then Iraq. Here we have Congress trying to rein in the president using the few tools it has. Also, the Supreme Court blocked a Trump administration plan to restrict mail-in voting and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. These are two more rebukes of the president? Hard to miss that reading in both cases, and surely Trump himself took both of them that way. He went on Cruz Social and blasted the rate increase in personal terms and also to denounce his own appointees to the Supreme Court, all three, by the way, for going against him on the mail-ins. And AI is. Top of the mind for many voters, and many in Congress. Most want some kind of restrictions. President Trump says all America needs is him. Well, yes, all we need is Trump and whatever it may take to stay ahead of China in this regard. AI development is racing ahead there, too. But lots of Republican candidates this fall are backing away, creating some distance with the president, noting the outcry against the massive data centers in their home districts and states, and also noting the impression of danger that keeps growing. Kennedy Center has been summarily closed because the president says his name should be on it. What does this say, and could he really demolish it? This whole issue, like the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, shows just how far Trump will go to prevail, defying the courts, defying reality. Is he tempted to bring in the bulldozers before the name issue is resolved, just to get it done, before he might be stopped? Maybe we can see an answer to that question, in that huge hole in the ground where the East Wing of the White House once stood. NPR Senior Contributor Ron Elving, thanks so much. Thank you, Scott. Leaders in France, Poland, and across the continent have warned this week that Russia may be about to broaden its war in Europe. The warning comes amid a spate of what they say are, "increasingly brazen Russian attacks." I'm joined now by NPR's Russia correspondent, Charles Maines. Charles, thanks for being with us. Good morning, Scott. When these European leaders mention Russian attacks, they call them "hybrid." What's that? Well, they're referring to moves that fall into a kind of gray zone. You know, they're not traditional military attacks, but nonetheless undermine Europe's sense of security. So we've seen what look to be attempts to sabotage defense or logistics infrastructure. For example, attack drones were found hidden at an airport, in Germany, that serves as a transit hub for NATO. There are also allegations of cyber attacks, election interference, or misinformation. And in the U.S., the Trump administration's Justice Department last week said it had foiled a Russian plot to assassinate an exiled dissident. You know, of course, all this comes in the context of Russia's war in Ukraine, which is now in its fifth year. And we've repeatedly seen drones fall on or near bordering NATO member countries like Poland and Romania. And while some are believed to be errant drones that have really just gone off course, there's growing evidence that's not always the case. It seems they're there to provoke and maybe even strike targets. But is there proof that Russia is responsible? Well, it's tougher to say. Western intelligence agencies say they have no doubt these are X carried out by Moscow. As to proof, they point to communication intercepts, messages essentially sent by Russian security services, where third parties are offered money to carry out assignments. So in other words, they're kind of task rabbits hired to do the dirty work. And what does Russia say? Well, they say there's no proof. And this is just scaremongering against Russia. In some cases, like this German airport incident, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said outright, this is an elaborate false flag operation with these attacks staged by Ukraine or the West to rally the European public against Moscow. And I have to say, the Kremlin is quite good at exploiting these denials at home. You know, they say to the Russian public, look how they blame us, how they blame you for everything, whether it's doping in sports, atrocities in Ukraine, threatening Europe, election interference. You know, Russia is always the guilty party. And I think some Russians, as a result, say, well, maybe they do hate us. If it is Russia, what's the rationale? What would Moscow be trying to achieve? Well, Russia has long argued the West, through its military support for Ukraine, is de facto a direct participant in the war. And so the theory here is that Russia is punishing Europe for this in particular, to the point where European leaders, or at least their voters, eventually say, enough's enough, Ukraine's just not worth the trouble. But doesn't that risk a direct conflict with NATO? Well, that's the fear, that one of these attacks proves deadly and NATO may feel it has to respond, perhaps even by triggering Article 5, the concept that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all. So the theory is that the Russian approach here is to keep it just below that threshold and instead undermine the alliance gradually. You know, think of it as death to Article 5 by a thousand cuts. So what does Europe or the West do then? Well, European leaders like France's Emmanuel Macron or Poland's Donald Tusk. Have made clear they intend to get tougher with Moscow, through more sanctions on Russia, support to Ukraine, perhaps even some military action if necessary. The Trump administration's approach seems quite to be the opposite. You know, they want to engage and talk up a future of deals and prosperity to help get issues like Ukraine settled and the rest they think will take care of itself. You know, which approach, carrot or stick, is better? I don't know. I don't think anybody does. But we're at a dangerous moment as we wait to find out. And here's Charles Main. Charles. Thanks so much. Thank you. The Protect College Sports Act, a bill that promises to bring stability to college sports, is racing to clear some of its final hurdles and it's on a glide path through the Senate. And once it clears final passage there, expected as soon as next week, it will head to the House, NPR sports correspondent Becky Sullivan. And NPR congressional reporter Eric McDaniel are here with more. Welcome to you both. Hi, Debbie. Hey there. So Becky, let's start before we get into this bill. As you well know, I'm a big time college football fan, roll tide. But you know, it's just remarkable the game is so different now. It's changed so much since athletes have been able to cut these deals for cash. Then we've even seen a school like LSU try to field former pro players. What's going on? Yeah. You nailed it. College sports really has changed dramatically, I would say, over the last, you know, 10 years and counting. And like this landslide of litigation has, I think, changed dramatically. think one by one essentially knocked away all of these NCAA rules that sort of used to govern how college sports works. The big one, of course, being amateurism, as you mentioned, players getting paid now. I don't think that toothpaste is going back in the tube on that one, but there are all these other rules like how long players are eligible for, how freely they can transfer between schools right now. There's no limits on that. And so I think if you talk to folks in college sports, they really paint this picture of quite the chaotic environment. Coaches who essentially have to reset their rosters every year. I think even from the fans' perspective, it can be hard to build investment in your own team when you kind of don't know who these players are year in and year out. And I think there's a lot of desire within the college sports world, especially, I should say, on the side of schools, conferences, and the NCAA itself, to rein some of that chaos in. And that is what the authors of this bill say that it's going to do. And so here is Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican of Texas, speaking last week about this. Right now, it is the Wild West. The Protect College Sports Act is bipartisan legislation designed to bring order to the chaos. So would this bill actually bring order to the chaos? That's what they say. What it does basically, Debbie, is it gives the NCAA some limited antitrust protection in order to kind of reestablish some of those rules. So the five-year eligibility, once you start college, you have five years to play ball once you've graduated from high school. They limit the transfers that you can only freely transfer between schools. If you want to do it again, you have to sit out a year, with some exceptions. It would also more than double what is essentially this new salary cap for universities to directly pay players. That's about $21 million this season. That would double to $48 million. There's some other rules around keeping coaches from departing before the end of the season, other regulations around agents and so on. But those are the big ones. Eric, this does seem to have a little momentum, at least in the Senate. But Congress has been trying to untangle this knot for a while now. What's been the holdup? Right. For all of the reasons Becky mentioned, there's been an obvious need for regulation since the Supreme Court kicked open this NIL era back in 2021. And there have been tons of competing proposals. This particular bill has been in the works for at least a year now with negotiations between the ranking senators on the committee that has jurisdiction here. That's Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Maria Cantwell of Washington. The House had some traction on their own reform proposal, but it fell apart after the Congressional Black Caucus pulled their support. That was a protest over the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act a few months ago. And all this time, the Senate has been quietly chipping away at their own proposal. And that is the proposal that's been jumping hurdles in the Senate this week, with 70 plus folks supporting it in procedural votes, so big bipartisan majorities. So assuming this will get out of the Senate, it still has to go through the House to make it to the president's desk. How likely is that? And do we even know what Trump thinks about it? I mean, I think the House thing is still a big question. We know that the president supports this bill, but there's a lot of opposition still. I think some folks, especially a lot of Democrats, are worried that this thing is too differential to the sort of powers in college sports, the NCAA, the big sports conferences. There's also this provision that's concerning to some big schools in California, Florida, the Carolinas, about sort of whether you can transfer between power conferences. I think that is going to prompt resistance from lawmakers in some of those states. There's concern over the antitrust provisions. There's concern over a lack of possibility for collective bargaining for athletes. There's still a lot of potential for opposition out there. Still, I would say this has momentum. Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, told reporters last week that he would work to get House Republicans on board. I will say I expect the effort might run into some senioritis problems. The House isn't coming back until after the November elections. So once it clears the Senate, things will go quiet for a couple weeks. Then you could see attendance problems. There are a record number of House folks retiring, a possibility that Democrats take the chamber, which means some losing Republicans, just stay home. And after all of that, it has to compete with other priorities, right? Boring stuff like, well, funding the government. I'll also be watching to see if Democrats, should they take the House, wait to see if they can negotiate their own deal in the new year. All right. Well, we'll wait and see. NPR congressional reporter Eric McDaniel and NPR sports correspondent Becky Sullivan. Thank you both for coming in. Thank you. Thanks, Debbie. And that's up first for Saturday, September 19, 2026. I'm Scott Simon. And I'm Debbie Elliott. Elena Torek produced this podcast along with Ryan Bank and Samantha Balaban. Our editor is Martin Patience. And boy, does he have it. He had help from Ed McNulty, Fernando Narro, Jason Breslow and Ruth Sherlock. In the control room today are our director, Michael Radcliffe, and our technical director, David Greenberg. Our great engineering team includes Zoe Van Genhoven, Zach Coleman and Simon Laszlo. Our senior supervising editor is Shannon Rhodes. Our executive producer is Evie Stone. And our deputy managing editor is Catherine Laidlaw. Tomorrow on the Sunday Story, an investigation into a tragic missing persons case. Journalist Austin Tice vanished in Syria more than 14 years ago. Now a new series investigates what may have happened to the reporter. So thank you for listening and for supporting your local NPR station. And to find yours, go to stations.npr.org. NPR.org.